Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[Hodos]

I can see that by your crack about papal infallibility, you’re trying to broaden the battlefield and confuse the issue.

No, that wasn’t a wisecrack, it was an illustration that doctrinal terms are often technical terms used to define a specific concept. The descriptor word for the doctrine need not be an exact usage of the common usage of the term. So just as infallibility means something different in its doctrinal use to you than it’s common usage, so does Sola Fide to us. Surely you can see how it can only be fair play to accept our doctrinal term as we have defined it if you are using it in a debate. Otherwise you are not debating the doctrine under discussion but a straw man that I have not proposed. You understand my point?

With regard to Luther using the term Faith Alone, that’s a false mid characterization. Luther was responding to opponents such a Tetzel, Prierias and Eck who were saying that you are justified in part by your works. Luther says no, Paul clearly says you are justified by faith apart from works. If Paul says you are not justified by your works, the only term left in the equation proposed by Luther’s opponents is faith. Hence Sola Fide. Luther’s writings are contextual. You cannot (if you are intellectually honest) ignore the arguments Luther was responding to when interpreting a single phrase used to summarize his teaching.

Luther’s opponents tried, as you are attempting to do, to say that Luther was claiming works have no place in the Christian life, when Luther clearly was not. He said you are justified by faith, not your works as Paul did.

Again, I refer back to Articles IV and VI of the Augsburg Confession in this point.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

Misrepresenting faith apart as faith alone, trying to make two different words mean the same thing; is being technical? And you compare it to papal infallibility?

That’s rich.

Now: What “ straw man “ are you talking about?

 

[Hodos]

Misrepresenting faith apart as faith alone, trying to make two different words mean the same thing; is being technical? And you compare it to papal infallibility?

Read my statement above. Let me know when you are ready to move forward with integrity and we will take it up tomorrow.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

Here’s the problem:

You accuse me of being intellectually dishonest and lacking integrity?

I’m pointing out the flaws in Luther’s position with clear reading of exact wording of the text and good sound judgment. Pointing out that, if Luther was being contextual; he wouldn’t putting words in Saint Paul’s mouth, contradicting Jesus and twisting Saint James into “ supporting “ his error.

The clear answer is: Faith apart is faith distinct from works. Faith alone is faith without works.

Saint Paul doesn’t say faith alone. Luther invented that to confound his opponents.

It’s as simple as that.

I’ll see you tomorrow, Hodos. Good night.

 

[annad347]

I didn’t read this whole thread… just got up to post 10… and got a question… if it was asked and/or answered please tell me which post to go too.

In a bible class at a Lutheran church I’m in … they were talking about the bible verse that says no one can take away what belong to God… John 10:28-30… basically when we belong to God we belong to God… not sure why, but I asked about works… basically if you don’t do good work doesn’t that mean you don’t have faith or that its not active or something like that.

They said that Faith in Jesus brings you to God, fills you with the Holy Spirit which leads you to do God’s Will which is the good works that proves/shows you are filled with the spirit. They believe that Faith and The Holy Spirit is necessary do God’s will… good works.

Even if you don’t feel like doing any good works, the more you get closer to God that feeling will change… and you’ll want to do His will… “works”.

is that how it is with Catholic?

 

[Hodos]

Annad347 I will send you some links that provide an excellent explanation of the relationship between faith and justification, and the two kinds of righteousness spoken of in scripture. I think if you grasp the concepts the speaker mentions it will prove to be very helpful. The videos are of a noted seminary professor who is a really good instructor who does a nice job laying things out systematically and simply.

 

[Hodos]

Saint Paul doesn’t say faith alone. Luther invented that to confound his opponents.

It’s as simple as that.

Not sure how you made that leap in logic considering 1) Paul stated we are saved by faith apart from works, and 2) Luther’s use of the term Faith Alone is coming directly from St. Ambrose. The fact is Luther was not being novel but was returning to the teaching of the gospel as proclaimed by the early Fathers.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

To address the obvious: Saint Paul said faith apart. Faith alone is different altogether. You quote Scripture; you better be using the exact wording.

It’s no leap in logic. I’m reading the text clear as a bell and word for word.

The Early Church Fathers never mentioned anything about faith alone doctrine in my reading of them. When Saint Augustine wrote against the Pelagians; he reaffirmed the need for grace and the Sacraments in order to be saved. Now there were antinomians in the Early Church that we’re dealt with. So, it stands to reason that works would be reaffirmed against them.

I did a little reading of my own. Saint Ambrose says:

“ God in his mercy has saved us through Christ. By his grace, we born again; received abundantly of his Holy Spirit, so that relying on good works, with him helping us in all things, we might be able to this lay hold onto the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. “

In fact, Dr Alister McGrath; an Anglican scholar had stated in his doctoral dissertation that the reformers’ justification doctrine is novel and nowhere to found in the Early Church and that the medieval Church was faithful to Saint Augustine.

 

[po18guy]

If you love Jesus Christ, what is there to lose by taking your bible and reading it His presence? Don’t believe He’s there?

Fine.

Just spend time in there in silence, as that is where God is heard. Tell Him that you really struggle to believe in His Sacramental presence. Give it time, as He has given you time.

 

[Hodos]

There are numerous quotes of the Church Fathers using the term faith alone in regard to justification. You keep trying to imply Luther was innovating but again he was upholding the apostle Paul’s definition of justification and invoking the Church Fathers.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

No, I’m not implying. I’m stating a truth. Justification by faith is a thoroughly Catholic doctrine that Protestants appropriated, based on the erroneous assumption that faith apart means faith alone; from the Church. Faith requires completion in works.

Looking at just Romans, you can see that justification by faith, completed in works; is what Saint Paul taught.

Romans 3 states faith apart from works. Not alone. Luther was either a fool or a liar to insist Saint Paul said otherwise. Looking at Romans 6:22, Saint Paul says that sanctification leads to eternal life; as he said earlier in Romans that righteousness by faith does.

Luther insisted faith alone saves and that sanctification only grows one in holiness and conformity with Christ.

Romans 3 and Romans 6:22 clearly show us his error. Using Scripture alone and not even referencing Saint James.

As for the Early Church Fathers, when they used the phrase faith alone, it was never used in the way that Luther did. To say otherwise is really and sadly reaching for support that’s not really there.

When you look at the Early Church, you see a sacramental system of justification by faith completed in works, the full 7 Sacraments, sins forgiven by priests and the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. As well as veneration of the saints, prayers for the dead, relics, Marian veneration and dogmas.

The Early Church was the Catholic Church.

 

[Hodos]

No, I’m not implying. I’m stating a truth. Justification by faith is a thoroughly Catholic doctrine that Protestants appropriated, based on the erroneous assumption that faith apart means faith alone; from the Church. Faith requires completion in works.

That is interesting because Paul specifically says you are justified by faith apart from works. If the justification is already given (past tense completed verb based on the Greek) at the outset before works have been performed, then justification, Paul has stated, is a free gift from God, not earned as the wages of a worker.

As for the Early Church Fathers, when they used the phrase faith alone, it was never used in the way that Luther did. To say otherwise is really and sadly reaching for support that’s not really there.

They used it exactly the way Luther did. Again, view our confessions.

When you look at the Early Church, you see a sacramental system of justification by faith completed in works, the full 7 Sacraments, sins forgiven by priests and the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

Luther upheld baptism, which works forgiveness of sins by giving us faith, Holy Communion which gives us assurance of forgiveness of sins already accomplished by Christ, and Confession and Absolution, the proclamation of forgiveness of sins by faith on account of Christ.

With regard to the additional things that you mentioned (veneration of saints, prayers for the dead, relics, Marian veneration, etc., these are no where commanded or commended in scripture for the purpose of justification and are irrelevant to the current topic being discussed. We can discuss those in another thread if you like.

The Early Church was the Catholic Church.

I agree (where doctrine and practice were not corrupted by innovation). And our doctrine was and is the catholic faith handed down by the apostles.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

Now you’re looking at specifics. And you’re coming at me with Scripture Alone. Good.

Saint Paul does specifically say faith apart. Not faith alone. So, if Scripture doesn’t explicitly state alone; then faith alone isn’t being discussed. Glad we cleared that up.

As for the wages of a worker: If justification is by works alone, then your argument would hold water. We can all agree, as we teach in the Catechism; that justification by faith is a free gift that none can merit. Thus, none can boast as if one could if we can win justification by works alone.

So, justification is based on faith.

Now, Saint Paul goes on to say that the return of righteousness by faith is eternal life. I believe we can both agree on that. Later in Romans 6:21, that the end of sin is death. In Romans 6:22, Saint Paul says that the return you get is sanctification; and it’s end, eternal life.

Luther held that justification by faith alone saves and sanctification, works; is just growth in holiness and conformity to Christ.

Saint Paul says that sanctification and justification both lead to eternal life. So, as the Church holds; justification and sanctification are the same.

That’s using Luther’s own doctrine against him. If Luther holds, Saint Paul contradicts himself in the same letter.

Thus, faith and works.

As for the Church Fathers:

Since the Church Fathers were the men who built the Early Church, upon which the medieval Church would further build upon; they were in a position to prevent and condemn any “ innovation and corruption “ as you accuse.

Since these men didn’t criticize and teach against Marian veneration, prayers for the dead, relics, the Marian dogmas; et cetera; they were either cowards who didn’t speak out or they collaborated with the “ innovation and corruption. “

Either way, this would require some sort of conspiracy theory to make your assertion that the Church Fathers were crypto Protestants.

And since these men intensively studied Scripture, they would have read Romans. They would have to have been grossly negligent to miss Luther’s Faith Alone were that the truth. But, for 1,500 years and rigorous study and debate in the Church; Luther’s innovation never surfaces.

 

[TULIPed]

Faith requires completion in works.

Why didn’t he just say faith “and” works then? Or even “mostly faith and works”? Or “almost entirely faith, but also works”?

Or here from 2 Corinthians 5:

“17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”

Why not “he is becoming a new creation”? Why not “The old is passing away; behold, the new is coming.”?

Why use “apart”? Interesting word. The Greek is “choris” - an adverb. It’s the same word used in John 15:5 here:

“5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”

I wonder if our Lord actually mean “for apart (mostly) from me, you can do nothing.” (I don’t think He did - I think he meant what we think he meant…)

You might disagree with how we Protestants view the differences between justification and sanctification - but I think you can at least see where we get the idea, no?

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed

If you’re meaning that faith in Christ is required for doing; then you’d be right. We teach that faith is required to do. That’s the key starting point.

 

[TULIPed]

My reading of the NT (and OT actually - just more obvious for me in the NT) (supported by confessions like the WCF and HCF to name a couple) is that there is a binary event when we come to have saving faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us (1 Corinthians 6:19). We are fully justified, and are - quite literally - “new creations” (because only perfection will do, as Paul lays out in Romans 1-3), but yet to be sanctified. Justification and sanctification are related but separate (hence the use of “choris” or “apart”) concepts. Justification is binary and sanctification is continual, and entirely due to the HS’s work in our hearts.

It helps of course that this is what I actually see happening in my life. I become more and more aware of my sin as I am convicted by the HS, I pray for the supernatural power I need to overcome that sin, and I slowly (too slowly!) see myself becoming sanctified. I believe - I know - that all of this is due to the HS in my life. I would be able to do none of it without Him.

Conversely, if we don’t see the sanctifying work of the HS in our lives, we have to ask ourselves if He’s really there. Again I ask - if Protestants really don’t find any value in works, why do we do the things we do, e.g. go to church, feed the poor, participate in small groups (with Catholics even!), tithe, etc. etc.

 

[Hodos]

Saint Paul does specifically say faith apart. Not faith alone. So, if Scripture doesn’t explicitly state alone; then faith alone isn’t being discussed. Glad we cleared that up.

We have discussed this ad nauseum and you continue to attempt to rip all of the latter half of Chapter 3 completely out of context. I stand by my previous exegesis.

Now, Saint Paul goes on to say that the return of righteousness by faith is eternal life.

Again, I explained this yesterday. The result of faith is sanctification with its end eternal life. The “result of” is not the “cause of.”

Saint Paul says that sanctification and justification both lead to eternal life. So, as the Church holds; justification and sanctification are the same.

Again, you are bending the verbiage out of context.

For when you were (past tense) slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit (what was the result or harvest) were you deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed (past tense completed action) and enslaved to God, you have (present indicative tense, not future as in something that still needs to be earned or subjunctive indicating a wish or desire that needs to be accomplished) your fruit unto (literally into) sanctification (resulting in sanctification), and the outcome (another result of what is already possessed), eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And all of this is harmonized with the explanation already provided of Chapters 1-5. Saint Paul isn’t contradicting himself, you are adding to the text, or perhaps using a poor translation, one of the two and it has led you to doctrinal error causing the conflict.

 

[Hodos]

Why use “apart”? Interesting word. The Greek is “choris” - an adverb. It’s the same word used in John 15:5 here:

Good point. The adverb xwris used here is the same used in Romans 3:28 and means without. Which is also why numerous early Fathers had no issue paraphrasing Romans 3:28 in their writings as faith alone when discussing justification.

 

[TULIPed]

Fair enough. I get it. Luther was a jerk. Plenty of Popes were too. (I’m a jerk too a fair bit of the time.)

Back on topic though - what do you think Jesus meant when He said this:

5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”

(Especially the “apart” part.)

 

[TULIPed]

Agreed. But that wasn’t the question I meant to ask. I phrased it poorly. I’ll try again.

What does the word - the same Greek word used by Jesus and Paul - actually mean do you think? Said another way - does that adverb mean different things in each passage. It’s absolute when Jesus uses it, and partial when Paul does for example.